undefined

 

Kingsley Amis, the former Angry Young Man, lives in a large, early-nineteenth-century house beside a wooded common. To reach it, one makes a journey similar to that described by the narrator of Girl, 20 when he visits Sir Roy Vandervane: first by tube to the end of the Northern Line at Barnet; then, following a phone call from the station to say where one is, on foot up a stiff slope; and finally down a suburban road. But instead of being picked up en route by Sir Roy’s black chum, Gilbert, I was intercepted by Amis’s tall and imposing blond wife, the novelist Elizabeth Jane Howard.

Amis’s study was a picture of bohemian disorder. Scattered across the floor were several teetering piles of poetry books and a mass of old 78 r.p.m. jazz records, while the big Adler typewriter on his desk was almost hidden behind a screen of empty bottles of sparkling wine which he’d recently sampled in his capacity as drink correspondent for Penthouse. A more sober note was struck by some shelves containing a complete Encyclopaedia Britannica, a thirteen-volume O.E.D., and various other authoritative tomes, but this was quickly dispelled by the sight of a small sherry cask in one corner, full, I was told, of whiskey.

For someone whose only regular exercise is strolling to and from the local pub, Amis at fifty-three is well preserved, with just a modest paunch hinted at beneath the light blue pullover and brown slacks he was wearing when we met. Early photos show him with thick, wavy hair; it’s gray now, but there’s still plenty of it, conventionally styled, and only a little longer at the back and sides than it was twenty years ago. He has a mobile face that lends itself to the impersonations for which he is famous (and of which I caught a tantalizingly brief glimpse), and an educated but far from affected voice that reminds one at times of the actor Kenneth More. The interview did not take place in his study, but in a pleasant, book-lined sitting room with a prospect of the back lawn through lofty French windows. We talked for about two hours, from eleven-fifteen until one-fifteen, Amis perched on the edge of a sofa rather than sitting back in it so as not to aggravate a troublesome disk. He chose his words carefully, sometimes pausing to think things out, but rarely needing to rephrase an answer. At about midday he had a Scotch, which was replenished shortly before the interview closed.

 

INTERVIEWER

You’ve said that “until the age of twenty-four, I was in all departments of writing abnormally unpromising.” This suggests that you were trying to write before this.

KINGSLEY AMIS

Oh, indeed yes. I’ve been trying to write for as long as I can remember. But those first fifteen years didn’t produce much of great interest. I mean, it embarrasses me very much to look back on my early poems—very few lines of any merit at all and lots of affectation. But there were quite a lot of them. That’s a point in one’s favor, I think, to work these poisons out of one’s system on paper: bad influences, like Dylan Thomas and Yeats—I’m not saying they’re bad poets, but I do think they’re bad influences, especially on a young writer. As regards prose, that was even worse. My first novel, which will never see the light of day, was really affectation from beginning to end—well, it did have a few jokes which I lifted for later stuff, and some bits of background from the town I was living in at the time, Berkhamsted, that were usable in Take a Girl Like You many years later.

INTERVIEWER

Have you always had the capacity for making people laugh?

AMIS

I was the, or a, school wit at twelve years old. Well, not wit exactly—someone who could imitate the masters. I’ve always been a fair mimic; one of my party pieces is FDR as heard by the British over shortwave radio in 1940. This perhaps has something to do with writing fiction; a novelist is a sort of mimic by definition.

INTERVIEWER

Did the fact that you were an only child have any bearing on your development as a writer? Either the amount of reading you did, or the fact that you had to use your imagination more?

AMIS

I think it’s . . . well, writing for me is to a large extent self-entertainment, and the only child is driven to do that. For example, I’m an expert whistler—I won’t give you a sample—but that takes hours of practice, the sort of thing one hasn’t got time for if one’s part of a large family, I imagine. And as for reading, well, of course I got a lot done. Again, totally heterogeneous material, what we would now call very bad literature: the boys’ comics of those days—which were, of course, compared with today’s comics, positively Flaubertian in their style and Dickensian in their character portrayal—all the way up through hardbound books of adventure stories and such, and taking in real writers like Dickens himself, Shakespeare, and so on, in much the same sort of spirit. I think it’s very important to read widely and in a wide spectrum of merit and ambition on the part of the writer. And ever since, I’ve always been interested in these less respectable forms of writing—the adventure story, the thriller, science fiction, and so on—and this is why I’ve produced one or two examples myself. I read somewhere recently somebody saying, “When I want to read a book, I write one.” I think that’s very good. It puts its finger on it, because there are never enough books of the kind one likes: one adds to the stock for one’s own entertainment.

INTERVIEWER

Did you draw on your childhood memories for The Riverside Villas Murder?

AMIS

To some extent. None of the events: I wasn’t lucky enough to be seduced by the pretty next-door neighbor, nor did I find a corpse in the sitting room. But the feeling and the adolescent attitudes were as close as I could remember to my own. The attitude to sex, to girls, to parents and school—that was all out of my emotional experience.

INTERVIEWER

You served in the Royal Signals in the war. Did My Enemy’s Enemy owe anything to this?

AMIS

Well, as you know, there were three stories of army life. And the shortest one, “Court of Enquiry,” was based on an experience of my own. I was the unfortunate Lieutenant Archer who was given a bad time by his company commander. But the other two stories were total fiction.

INTERVIEWER

Archer describes his vision of an acceptable postwar England as “as full of girls and drink and jazz and books and decent houses and decent jobs and being your own boss.” Was this your England, too?

AMIS

Oh, yes, that’s very much how I felt. And when I voted Labor by proxy in 1945, this is what I had in mind. I didn’t expect the Government to bring me girls, but I did share in the general feeling of optimism and liberty abroad at that time.

INTERVIEWER

Did you publish anything before Lucky Jim?

AMIS

Right at the end of my Oxford stay I coedited Oxford Poems 1949 with James Michie, and naturally got some of my own poems into that. But apart from poems and a review or two, I don’t think there was anything.

INTERVIEWER

There still seem to be misconceptions about the origins of Lucky Jim. Am I right in saying that it wasn’t based on Swansea University, where you were lecturing at the time?

AMIS

Yes. It was conceived, if that’s the right word, way back in 1946, when I happened to visit Philip Larkin, who was on the library staff at Leicester University. The young man surrounded by bores whom for various reasons he doesn’t dare to offend—that was all there. The contribution of Swansea, so to speak, was just to give me information about how things were run: what the faculty is, who the registrar is and what he does, what classes are like, what exam responsibilities are like, et cetera. But there’s no character in the book, however minor, who was actually there at Swansea.

INTERVIEWER

Why was Lucky Jim such a long time coming?

AMIS

Well, being busy and being lazy, which so often go together, my first year at Oxford after the war was spent celebrating not being in the army. Then I had to work hard for my final exams. At Swansea it took me some time to get to grips with the heavy workload, and meanwhile there were also domestic responsibilities in the form of a wife and two young children who turned up very fast, one after the other. And another point was lack of a possible place to write in. The only requirement, I think, is a room to oneself, however small. Fortunately my wife received a small legacy and we got a house in Swansea which had such a room in it and instantly I began Lucky Jim. But that was a slow process: I had to redraft the whole thing. The first draft was very feeble, so I showed it to friends, particularly Philip Larkin again, who made very constructive suggestions. And then I started again from scratch, a thing I haven’t done since. So it was not only delayed by external circumstances, but also, I think, by inexperience.

INTERVIEWER

I think it’s difficult for anyone under thirty today to see Jim as a true rebel, despite what he may have appeared then.

AMIS

Yes, well, rebellion escalates, doesn’t it? My father thought that he, my father, was a rebel. Though of course by the time I was taking any notice of his views, he was as stolidly conservative, not to say reactionary, as anybody I’ve ever met. And it’s true that Jim’s rebelliousness is by any standards mild, certainly by today’s standards. But then I think the degree to which he was intended to be seen by the author as a rebel has been exaggerated. He didn’t want to change the System. He certainly didn’t want to destroy the System.